Journalist in legal fight with Obama administration over sources

Share

(RSF/IFEX) - 21 October 2011 - Reporters Without Borders urges the Department of Justice to withdraw the appeal it filed yesterday in a bid to force New York Times reporter James Risen to testify about his confidential sources in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who is accused of leaking top-secret information.

"We remind the Obama administration that its role is not to determine what is good coverage of national security issues," Reporters Without Borders said. "Jeffrey Sterling's trial has now been suspended indefinitely. Forcing Risen to testify is an attempt to muzzle every journalist who might publish leaked information. It is an attempt to decide what should and should not be in the press."

In a statement given to Reporters Without Borders yesterday, Risen said: "I will continue to fight the government's effort because I believe that this case is a fundamental battle over freedom of the press in the United States. If I don't fight, the government will go after other journalists."

Since President Obama took office, his administration has initiated five prosecutions of alleged leakers under the Espionage Act. This is the highest number under any administration. There is no federal shield law in the United States that could allow journalists to protect their sources.

In a story for the New York Times in December 2005, Risen revealed that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretapping on U.S. citizens. A book by Risen entitled "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush administration," that was published in January 2006, included a chapter about the warrantless wiretapping and revealed many other aspects of the Bush administration's "war on terror."

President Bush got the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation to try to find Risen's sources for the warrantless wiretapping story in the New York Times. But the investigators never found anyone they could try to prosecute and Risen was not subpoenaed.

Instead, in 2008, the Bush Administration subpoenaed Risen over a second criminal leak investigation regarding a story that was only in the book (a failed CIA operation involving Iran). Risen was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury but refused, and the subpoena expired early in the Obama administration.

In 2010, the Obama administration issued Risen with a new grand jury subpoena. He again refused, and U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema quashed the subpoena. In 2011, the Obama administration issued yet another subpoena, this one for the Sterling trial. Brinkema quashed that subpoena as well, ruling that Risen was required to testify only to certain harmless facts, such as whether or not he wrote the book, and whether it was accurate.

Earlier this month, Brinkema rejected an Obama administration's motion that tried to get her to reverse her earlier ruling on Risen's subpoena. The appeal that the Justice Department filed yesterday is against that last ruling.

More from United States

Civil society leaders in Egypt are urging the U.S. government to continue to condition and withhold military aid to Egypt until the Egyptian government makes meaningful reforms to its human rights practices.

Americans witnessed several major cyberattacks in the latter half of 2016, including the hacking and subsequent leaking of sensitive information from the Democratic National Committee in the lead up to the vote

The report examines the rise of fraudulent news, defined here as demonstrably false information that is being presented as a factual news report with the intention to deceive the public, and the related erosion of public faith in traditional journalism. The report identifies proposed solutions at the intersection of technology, journalism, and civil society to empower news consumers with better skills and tools to help them process the torrents of information they see online.

Political polarization in the media worsened during the presidential campaign, due in part to the emergence of “alt-right” news sites that disseminated highly nationalistic or nativist messages, conspiracy theories, and at times false or propagandistic coverage.

Which companies stand with their users, embracing transparency around government data requests? Which companies have resisted improper government demands by fighting for user privacy in the courts and on Capitol Hill? In short, which companies have your back?

"Congressional efforts in 2012 to adopt legislation to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet were shelved in response to strong opposition from leading Internet companies, websites, and ordinary users"

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.

Get more stories like this

Sign up for our newsletters and get the most important free expression news delivered to your inbox.